@article {Smithmedethics-2017-104273, author = {Malcolm K Smith and Tracey Carver}, title = {Montgomery, informed consent and causation of harm: lessons from Australia or a uniquely English approach to patient autonomy?}, elocation-id = {medethics-2017-104273}, year = {2018}, doi = {10.1136/medethics-2017-104273}, publisher = {Institute of Medical Ethics}, abstract = {The UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board adopts an approach to information disclosure in connection with clinical treatment that moves away from medical paternalism towards a more patient-centred approach. In doing so, it reinforces the protection afforded to informed consent and autonomous patient decision making under the law of negligence. However, some commentators have expressed a concern that the widening of the healthcare providers{\textquoteright} duty of disclosure may provide impetus, in future cases, for courts to adopt a more rigorous approach to the application of causation principles. The aim would be to limit liability but, in turn, it would also limit autonomy protection. Such a restrictive approach has recently been adopted in Australia as a result of the High Court decision in Wallace v Kam. This paper considers whether such an approach is likely under English negligence law and discusses case law from both jurisdictions in order to provide a point of comparison from which to scope the post-Montgomery future.}, issn = {0306-6800}, URL = {https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2018/03/23/medethics-2017-104273}, eprint = {https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2018/03/23/medethics-2017-104273.full.pdf}, journal = {Journal of Medical Ethics} }